"Rich" wrote in message
...

"MLD" wrote in message
news:nGvCe.2181$Kz3.1225@trndny04...

Obviously, you are not familiar with six sigma and what it
entails---no more
than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. For your enlightenment:

MLD

The number of defect as measured when? On an assembly line? What
about 6 months later, or make it really unreasonble 5 years later.

The refrigirator I posted about in another thread, but referenced
here, was made by GE for Sears. It's 12 years old and I may be able
to fix the cooling problem. But let me add, the plastic (way too
thin) shelf supports are broken and Sears will sell you one for $12
or so, last I checked. Replace all those clearly underdesigned
components and you're half way into a new applience.

What does six sigma have to do with this design for quick absolecence?

BTW, the supports are so designed, that short of sculpting one from
steel, there's no way to strenghten them in any way. That's what I
call crap. Agree with Turtle.

Rich

OK--With respect to all the posts in response to my six sigma comment--I
agree with them all!! I obviously was blinded, biased, and my thoughts were
colored by my own work experience with a product that doesn't have loose
specs, has quality, life and safety built into it. It's not a refrigerator,
washer or microwave oven where if a part fails you simply replace, repair,
make thicker or heaver. I dealt with jet engines--here is a product that
must operate at inlet temperatures from minus (-) 65F to 130F. Run at sea
level to 60,000 Ft. at flight speeds of Mach 0 to 2.0 while the pilot is
free to move the throttle over its operating range as often and as rapidly
as he wants. Where the gas temperature in the turbine area is actually
hotter than the melting point of the blading. The engine has shown that it
is capable of operating over its speed range for 20,000-30,000 hours or so
without requiring a shutdown or experiencing a failure---that's approx 2 to
3 yrs.--- try that on your car. When a component failure does occur, both
the Military/FAA requires an investigation as to the cause and then
corrective action to fix it. Granted the engine that I'm familiar with
(installed in the F/A 18) is a bit pricey--about 1.5 million dollars. This
is the six sigma environment that I was thinking about--I concede to the
homeware products and the comments that followed.
MLD

MLD wrote:
.....
OK--With respect to all the posts in response to my six sigma comment--I
agree with them all!! I obviously was blinded, biased, and my thoughts were
colored by my own work experience with a product that doesn't have loose
specs, has quality, life and safety built into it. ...

The specs for consumer goods aren't necessarily any "looser" and the
useage of 6-sigma may well be as rigorous as in your example. It is
simply the target that is different. Try building that same jet engine
for 2/3 the price or consider how your design parameters would have to
change if the target aircraft were a corporate jet, say, instead of
military--the cost pressure of keeping that Citation competitive in the
marketplace would undoubtedly have a significant effect on the eventual
performance specifications. It's that environment that is, as you now
realize , more nearly comparable to the consumer market.

None of the above intended as rant/criticism/whatever, just amplifying
on how the environment changes the requirements w/ the specs following--

"Bonnie Jean" wrote in message
...

"Spud" wrote in message
Maytag sees talks with Haier ending next week
ATLANTA: Appliance maker Maytag Corp., which has set an August shareholder
vote on a $14-a-share buyout, has said that it expects to complete
discussions with a second potential bidding group that includes Chinese
appliance maker Haier Group next week

I just heard this morning that Whirlpool made an even higher bid for Maytag.

This is Turtle.

I wish that Whirlpool would get it for I don't like the ideal of the only
choices being the over sea's companys or Whirlpool when choosing appliances.

TURTLE

"TURTLE" wrote

"Spud" wrote in message
Maytag sees talks with Haier ending next week
ATLANTA: Appliance maker Maytag Corp., which has set an August
shareholder
vote on a $14-a-share buyout, has said that it expects to
complete
discussions with a second potential bidding group that includes
Chinese
appliance maker Haier Group next week

I just heard this morning that Whirlpool made an even higher bid
for Maytag.

This is Turtle.

I wish that Whirlpool would get it for I don't like the ideal of the
only
choices being the over sea's companys or Whirlpool when choosing
appliances.

Yes, it's bad enough already. If the only stores in your area are
Wall Mart and Home Depot, it's already close to impossible to find an
American made appliance. They simply do not carry them.

If Whirlpool goes East, there will be no choices anywhere.

Rich

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
MLD wrote:
....
OK--With respect to all the posts in response to my six sigma comment--I
agree with them all!! I obviously was blinded, biased, and my thoughts
were
colored by my own work experience with a product that doesn't have loose
specs, has quality, life and safety built into it. ...

The specs for consumer goods aren't necessarily any "looser" and the
useage of 6-sigma may well be as rigorous as in your example. It is
simply the target that is different. Try building that same jet engine
for 2/3 the price or consider how your design parameters would have to
change if the target aircraft were a corporate jet, say, instead of
military--the cost pressure of keeping that Citation competitive in the
marketplace would undoubtedly have a significant effect on the eventual
performance specifications. It's that environment that is, as you now
realize , more nearly comparable to the consumer market.

None of the above intended as rant/criticism/whatever, just amplifying
on how the environment changes the requirements w/ the specs following--

Comments accepted as intended--You're right, the cost is certainly a direct
result of the application, however, I'd like to add the following: With
respect to Biz Jets--Just about all the engines used in corporate aircraft
are derivatives of a design used in a Military application; for example, the
Lear Jet, Daussalt Falcon engines used derivatives of the GE J85 engine
which is used in the T38 Trainer, F5 Freedom Fighter (along with a number of
others). The GE CF34 used in several Military aircraft e.g. A10(warhog) is
on the Bombardier Challenger. The GE T700 is used in many Military
helicopters as well as many civilian applications. The design requirements
or Specs of these engines are not compromised in any way just because they
are on the commercial side of the fence. In fact, satisfying the FAA is, in
many cases, a much more difficult task than the Military. They (engines) are
less costly since they don't have to perform as aggressively as their
Military counterpart (simpler control systems, reduced complexity etc.) but
not at the expense of flight safety or endurance.
For those that are down on GE and don't want to deal with their
products----cut down on your flying or be more selective with respect to the
aircraft you book on--GE engines are installed on approx 70% of the world's
commercial aircraft. BTW, did I mention that I worked for GE?
MLD
MLD

MLD wrote:

....
Comments accepted as intended--You're right, the cost is certainly a direct
result of the application, however, I'd like to add the following: With
respect to Biz Jets--Just about all the engines used in corporate aircraft
are derivatives of a design used in a Military application; for example, the
Lear Jet, Daussalt Falcon engines used derivatives of the GE J85 engine
which is used in the T38 Trainer, ... The design requirements
or Specs of these engines are not compromised in any way just because they
are on the commercial side of the fence. In fact, satisfying the FAA is, in
many cases, a much more difficult task than the Military. They (engines) are
less costly since they don't have to perform as aggressively as their
Military counterpart (simpler control systems, reduced complexity etc.) but
not at the expense of flight safety or endurance.

But, in fact, those latter considerations are "compromised" design
specs for precisely the reasons you give and including the fact that
the market would not support the cost structure if they weren't. That
the safety side isn't significantly different is only one portion of the
equation, albeit it is an important one.

For those that are down on GE and don't want to deal with their
products----cut down on your flying or be more selective with respect to the
aircraft you book on--GE engines are installed on approx 70% of the world's
commercial aircraft. BTW, did I mention that I worked for GE?

I gathered as much... Cincinnati?

OBTW, did I mention I had close family ties w/ Cessna?

However, the consumer appliance division of GE in its current
incarnation has gone the broad-market, less expensive route at the
apparent loss of reliability and longevity. That said, I'm sure they're
very precisely engineered and the production facilities are
ISO-certified. It's just too bad the American consumer is so
initial-purchase-price sensitive that there's no significant market for
better goods...

"MLD" wrote in message
For those that are down on GE and don't want to deal with their
products----cut down on your flying or be more selective with respect to
the
aircraft you book on--GE engines are installed on approx 70% of the
world's
commercial aircraft. BTW, did I mention that I worked for GE?
MLD

GE is capable of making a good product, (although the engines are not as
good as the one Pratt makes here in CT) but they chose a different market
for consumer goods. Not everyone wants or can afford the top of the line.
GE chose to make a higher volume lower priced unit to target a different
audience than the higher priced brands. It falls on the consumer to educate
themselves and make decisions based on what they learn.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
MLD wrote:

...SKIP
I gathered as much... Cincinnati?

OBTW, did I mention I had close family ties w/ Cessna?

Lynn, Ma--small aircraft engines, mostly on the F04 (F/A-18)
With respect to Cessna--spent about a week there quite some time ago, most
of the time on the runway g At that time they produced a very small
Military aircraft--which for the life of me I can't recall the exact name.
Production line shut down, they gave me a crew, a portable test stand, a
pilot,an aircraft, a two channel recorder and then walked away. I'm sure
they were looking out the windows but they just left me to sink or swim.
Fortunately, I didn't sink.
MLD





However, the consumer appliance division of GE in its current
incarnation has gone the broad-market, less expensive route at the
apparent loss of reliability and longevity. That said, I'm sure they're
very precisely engineered and the production facilities are
ISO-certified. It's just too bad the American consumer is so
initial-purchase-price sensitive that there's no significant market for
better goods...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:0ESCe.6821$ij3.124@trndny06...

"MLD" wrote in message
For those that are down on GE and don't want to deal with their
products----cut down on your flying or be more selective with respect to
the
aircraft you book on--GE engines are installed on approx 70% of the
world's
commercial aircraft. BTW, did I mention that I worked for GE?
MLD

GE is capable of making a good product, (although the engines are not as
good as the one Pratt makes here in CT) but they chose a different market
for consumer goods. Not everyone wants or can afford the top of the line.
GE chose to make a higher volume lower priced unit to target a different
audience than the higher priced brands. It falls on the consumer to
educate
themselves and make decisions based on what they learn.


Pratt was the major supplier of commercial and Military engines--there must
be a reason why they lost so much of both markets (I believe GE now has
approx 70% commercial, 90% Military). What about the foreign market too?
Could it be because they just couldn't keep up and compete? I recall they
had a lot of stall problems along with keeping compressor discs from
breaking up--do you remember sitting in a commercial aircraft (I do)--per
FAA requirements--having to run the engines up to full power and hold for a
bit, back to Idle and then to full power--before being allowed to take off.
A quick test to make sure the discs wouldn't fail on Take-Off. Used to
wonder how many passengers knew what was going on.
MLD

MLD wrote:
....
Lynn, Ma--small aircraft engines, mostly on the F04 (F/A-18)

Yeah, I knew after I sent it wouldn't be likely to be Cincy...

With respect to Cessna--spent about a week there quite some time ago, most
of the time on the runway g At that time they produced a very small
Military aircraft--which for the life of me I can't recall the exact name.

Don't know status of production...last I knew of was T-37 and A-37 and
variants...

My connections are now getting rather dated, too. I don't want to
consider what that says about me...